Re: FTIII

In message <Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.961212143726.2610A-100000@byse.nada.kth.se>
Oerjan Ohlson writes:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 dgundberg@bcbsnd.com wrote:

> > To balance things out, revisions to the point cost of some systems
may be 
> > advisable.	I like the challenge of designing a ship that has
multiple criteria 
> > the must be met, i.e. point cost and mass.	I don't think mass alone
can do it, 
> > especially if campaign rules are added.
> 
> Agreed. If mass is removed, differences in basic tech levels gets very

> difficult to simulate - a powerful weapon _must_ be more massive than
a 
> weaker, or restricted as to who can use it - or else campaign balance 
> goes out the window... However, if this other criteria is a points
cost, 
> or a power supply need, or whatever, I don't mind - as long as it
works. 
> (...not that that is always easy to accomplish...)

I don't see a need for a mass, so long as something is used as a 
multiplier. Charge a flat point cost for everything, including hull
boxes, and multiply by a factor derived from the thrust. Or use the
number of hull-boxes as a multiplier. Or both. A more expensive 
weapon will demand a more survivable platform, anyway, so there's 
your mass-factor.

I think tech-levels are a red herring. If a superior technology can
shrink it all down... and make a smaller platform more survivable,
then the exact same ship in FT stat terms, same weapons, same hull-
boxes, same thrust, could be quite different "masses". But what is 
mass relevent to?

...Only to an FT catholic...

Note that a 40 mass merchant is little different to a 20 mass escort.
Now check the point costs.

-- 
David Brewer